If you're having trouble finding your submission, please feel free to message the moderators. Make sure to provide us with a link to the post in question and as long it meets all of the criteria, it will be set free!

Quite right too. When a source you (presumably) previously respected reaches a different conclusion from you on some issue, you should never try to follow their reasoning, understand why they reached the conclusion they did, or see whether they've started from a different set of assumptions to you and (if so) ask which set is more reasonable.
Instead, you should block out any dissenting voices from your life. You're absolutely doing the right thing in unsubscribing from any paper that in any way challenges (rather than reinforces) your current views. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. They're wrong. After all, if their opinion was worth anything they would already agree with you, wouldn't they?

nevermind the consensus seems to be that the mods deleted it even though his comment is completely rational and doesn't lean right or left in any way. It's like they don't like logic.
Color me surprised.

Quite right too. When a source you (presumably) previously respected reaches a different conclusion from you on some issue, you should never try to follow their reasoning, understand why they reached the conclusion they did, or see whether they've started from a different set of assumptions to you and (if so) ask which set is more reasonable.

Instead, you should block out any dissenting voices from your life. You're absolutely doing the right thing in unsubscribing from any paper that in any way challenges (rather than reinforces) your current views. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. They're wrong. After all, if their opinion was worth anything they would already agree with you, wouldn't they?

I would do the same thing if I was in their shoes. Linking something to a subreddit that mainly talks about other reddit posts tends to mess things up and bring in a vote brigade. See SRD, SRS, bestof, etc.

r/Conservative mods like to say they ban "liberal trolls" but in reality they just ban anyone who isn't hardcore right wing. They really like their bubble over there. I got tired of the r/politic circle jerk, and went over there for discussion, but immediately was banned when I disagreed with the typical right wing talking points. It seems this post about blocking dissenting views was dissenting too much and getting too much attention, so it went bye bye. If you ask them, they'll say he was "trolling" which is code for disagreeing with their own hive mind.

The point is that there are plenty of alternate viewpoints on reddit. /r/Conservative is intended to be a "safe haven" for conservative discussion. Given the majority of people on reddit are left-of-center, /r/conservative tends to be over-protective of their relative tranquility.

That said, I'm not sure why the poster's comment was deleted either. It seemed harmless enough.

The mods in r/conservative are trigger-happy jerks.
Just mentioning a fact that the mods don't like is enough to get banned.
Mentioning that people get banned will get you banned.
See these I-got-banned stories for a few examples

And that's exactly how most of the ridiculous subreddits work. Like /r/HollabackReddit and /r/AskWomen. They're all pretty annoying. And yes I listed those two because I'm banned from both because I posted ideas that go against their ideas; I wasn't attacking, just stating different ideals.

I got one of the higher upvoted comments in the thread below him, then responded to the people who responded to me. I was just banned from posting in that subreddit, and they also just removed the downvote arrows from the subreddit. Pretty hilarious response.

Would not cognitive flexibility be mostly synonymous with neural plasticity? Although that would be an opinion I imagine, but then again is anything not? I would sooner describe this persons condition as simply being stubborn.

Quite right too. When a subreddit you (presumably) previously respected reaches a different conclusion from you on some issue, you should never try to follow their reasoning, understand why they reached the conclusion they did, or see whether they've started from a different set of assumptions to you and (if so) ask which set is more reasonable.

Instead, you should block out any dissenting voices from your life. You're absolutely doing the right thing in unsubscribing from any subreddit that in any way challenges (rather than reinforces) your current views. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. They're wrong. After all, if their opinion was worth anything they would already agree with you, wouldn't they?

Quite right too. When a poster you (presumably) previously respected reaches a different conclusion from you on some issue, you should meta meta meta running joke into the ground karma train. After all, if their opinion was worth anything they would already agree with you, wouldn't they?

In relationships and business differing opinions are generally welcomed and believed to be critical to actual grow and improve.

In issues such as health, home care and auto care its generally believed that a second opinion is very important to prevent you from getting incorrect information that leads you to make the wrong decisions about your life.

But when it comes to politics and religion nobody will allow the same common sense to be part of their decision making process.

In relationships and business differing opinions are generally welcomed and believed to be critical to actual grow and improve.

I don't believe that this is true to a large extent. Differing opinions are usually filtered out in most institutions and by public in general.

Also, there is a difference between legitimate different opinion and outright lies. Yes, outright lies have to be rejected. Someone spouting lies doesn't have a differing opinion. They are playing a different game altogether.

For things that are in the gray area, like social public and economic policy, make the best decision based on evidence. And also, don't treat government like a business. It is not a business and never will be. Government can most likely only become efficient, and not a profit making business.

And lastly, free market doesn't regulate itself, it never has and never will.

"time to cancel my subscription"
Quite right too. When a source you (presumably) previously respected reaches a different conclusion from you on some issue, you should never try to follow their reasoning, understand why they reached the conclusion they did, or see whether they've started from a different set of assumptions to you and (if so) ask which set is more reasonable.
Instead, you should block out any dissenting voices from your life. You're absolutely doing the right thing in unsubscribing from any paper that in any way challenges (rather than reinforces) your current views. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. They're wrong. After all, if their opinion was worth anything they would already agree with you, wouldn't they?

The comment has disappeared from the subreddit. It seems like it was removed by the moderators, because I found it in his/her profile. Quoting /u/GreenAnarchist below:

time to cancel my subscription

Quite right too. When a source you (presumably) previously respected reaches a different conclusion from you on some issue, you should never try to follow their reasoning, understand why they reached the conclusion they did, or see whether they've started from a different set of assumptions to you and (if so) ask which set is more reasonable.

Instead, you should block out any dissenting voices from your life. You're absolutely doing the right thing in unsubscribing from any paper that in any way challenges (rather than reinforces) your current views. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. They're wrong. After all, if their opinion was worth anything they would already agree with you, wouldn't they?

No kidding. Here's a response from a mod in /r/askhistorians to a request to tell more about the Russian civil war:

You mean the war that brought the communists to power? What caused it was the failure of the Russian monarchy to enact reforms, and the outcome was the Soviet Union.
That's all you get. Go read.

It never used to be like that as a small sub but as they've grown to 50k, there's been a lot of asshattery from the ignorant and a lot of a hostility from the historians. I'm watching the sub rot away and its sad.

I don't get hwy this is so hard for people to understand. Every subreddit that booms in popularity/population turns to shit pretty quick. That's just how it works. If /r/conservative had as many subs as /r/politics it would be just as shitty.

But it is /r/conservative. It is allowed to be biased by its name and description. /r/politics is a default subreddit and its name indicates it is a neutral political subreddit however it is monopolized by the left. Not to mention a good portion of the topics there break the rules of the subreddit itself in terms of sensationalizing posts and group downvoting.

The problem doesn't come from the bias. That should be expected when going to a place that has an ideology for a name. The issue comes when the sub gets massive and everyone wants to be known, so they start trying to one up each other.

"I disagree with this policy"

"Yeah, well I hate it"

"I don't even want to live on this planet anymore"

It's just a bunch of people trying to be the most outrageous so that they can get the most amount of attention. It's very much similar to modern news programs, except they're counting viewers not upvotes.

The exaggerated responses always get voted to the top over the reasonable but less sensational ones in the bigger subreddits, and it kind of pisses me off. Somebody posts a picture of a spider and a normal person's reaction of "I don't really like spiders that much" gets ignored in favor of the over-the-top "NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE" "KILL IT WITH FIRE" "NUKE IT FROM ORBIT, IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO BE SAFE" bullshit. I understand that maybe those responses are funnier to some people than a realistic one but personally I find them to be disingenuous and obnoxious cries for attention from people who probably didn't even really mind spiders that much until they started frequenting a website where you're "supposed" to hate them.

Exactly. From what I can tell, this issue comes up anytime a group becomes too large. Some people want to be known among the masses so they have to make themselves the most outrageous to gain attention. It's easy to see this in an /r/funny post's comments, but I think it becomes truly dangerous when it happens in places that actually matter. If a politician wants to be heard and known among his constituents he has to make a presence, and unfortunately this often means he will resort to this "be the most outrageous" tactic. Rather than have a sane political discussion, every congressman wants to be the one to give the big, hard-hitting line that makes it into the history books. In the end we get politicians spouting absurdity just for the sake of being an attention whore rather than genuine political discussion. It may seem stupid on some internet forum, but when you start to see it in real life you realize how dangerous it really is.

A larger problem is dissenting opinions, with cited sources, will still get downvoted because people treat upvote/downvote like a like/dislike button. I didn't come to reddit to hear what the masses think. I came for discussion and some insightful ideas. Repeating the same bullshit over and over gets us nowhere.

I'm sorry but this is reddit calling the kettle black and then jizzing all over it.

Anything someone does not find to their liking on here is downvoted, it doesnt matter how rational and informative it is it just matters how popular it is. Everyone knows how irrationally one sided r/politics is that they have to look into subreddits to find any hope of a broad view.

I don't know. I usually come to Reddit to read the comments on links to external sites. Usually you will get intelligent takedowns and if someone has a well reasoned counterpoint they do not get downvoted.

The amusing - or maybe just sad - part of this is that a similar post calling out an Obama supporter would never have been upvoted on /r/bestof and now this link is being used to make the constant liberal brigading of /r/conservative even worse.

The fact that he says this on a website where liberals filter what information is available to eachother while calling out a conservative, without stipulating the first problem, really undercuts his message.

What's pathetic is that the submitter to whom the bestof comment is replying is a troll account. Look at his user page: ConservativeWarrior.

BestOf has become such a joke over the past couple of years. Here we have an obvious troll and then some high-and-mighty white knight response. Nothing more. It's no better than a parody at this point.

But it's just the way it was done. I've seen this sentiment on /r/politics get upvoted. 'Politicfact called Obama a liar! I'm starting to seriously doubt that websites worth.' I saw this multiple times and it was upvoted. Why not articulate the sentiment against liberals? It just seems a popular train of thought that conservatives are sheep that don't question the validity of statements made by Fox News while ignoring arguments made by liberals while those on /r/politics are smart bunch that do all this fact checking. Of course the hypocrisy of many posters not questioning articles by dailykos or whatever is often loss on them. And many articles do go unquestioned.

That's total bullshit. I know for a fact that for every heavily upvoted bullshit post, there is a heavily upvoted comment putting said post in its place. This is a near universal truth of reddit, no matter what the subject.

I'm convinced there are two types of people on reddit; there are the people that only read the links and vote accordingly, and there are the people who go through the comments and thus spend less time on links. The comment-readers generally hate the people who upvote crap. The people who upvote crap aren't listening.

Definitely. There almost has to be I think. There are so many times where I'll see a headline in /r/politics and think "OMG, WTF?!!" and then when I read the top comment, I realize the headline is some perverted half-truth (maybe not even half, maybe like 1/10th).

If something shitty produced an interesting comment thread, and I feel I want more people to stumble onto that comment thread, I have to upvote the shitty original post. I also often upvote comments I want people to see. If someone explains himself, I sometimes upvote to get people to read the explanation, even if disagree.

this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2012
0 points (33% like it)
322 up votes 628 down votes

Holy bestof vote brigade, batman. While I disagree with the OP's line of reasoning, I don't think this type of activity really does anything to improve Reddit. Votes are distributed moderation, and a couple hundred people who don't subscribe to their subreddit and don't agree with their viewpoints are coming in and saying "Hey, you know that community that you've created for likeminded people to have discussions without turning everything into a flamewar? Well, we know more about moderating good content for you than you do."

I don't know what the original post was at prior to the bestof link, but it's practically unheard of to have 300 more downvotes than upvotes - by the time you're in the negatives, you're pretty much gone from the front page, and there's no way you'd get 300 people to see it.

The ironic part is that bestof readers are doing exactly what the comment itself is speaking out against. They're going to a subreddit and downvoting dissenting opinions that was relevant to that subreddit because it opposes their own viewpoints, and upvoting a comment talking about how it's not a good idea to block out dissenting opinions.

Poor r/conservative. I believe there are intelligent conservatives. But they get so overshadowed by the idiots on the social conservative and partisan right it's often hard to see them. That sub is a great example. Routinely, sane conservative voices get shouted down by lunatics screaming about Muslim death camps and birth certificates and such.

Yeah more people should be open minded to the things that you like. But screw those ideas of being open minded in the opposite direction. Unless the person who wrote this, and all the people supporting it, have subscriptions to a Romney-loving magazine, this is another giant hypocritical circlejerk.

Wow, I didn't realize how many assholes subscribe to bestof. Seriously, just because the post is on /r/conservative and you tend to be liberal doesn't mean this should be a downvote brigade. The linked-to post wasn't even profound. I'm sure ConservativeWarrior has heard the case for Obama and understands the reasoning. That doesn't mean he should still give his money to an organization he disagrees with.

I think the title of his post is what caused the downvotes. He makes it seem like he's doing the exact thing that he was "called out" for, disowning the magazine simply because it happens to disagree with his opinion. If he really does get the reasoning, that's one thing. All I'm saying is that the wording makes that seem unlikely

I don't think so. If he said, "Time magazine had a racist article, time to cancel my subscription", nobody here would think twice, because everybody here disagrees with racism. I'm not saying that endorsing Obama is racist or on the same level as racism, it's just something that ConservativeWarrior disagrees with. In fact, as a (presumably free-market) conservative, that's exactly what he should do if he disagrees with it.

"It's not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard; it is the right of everybody in the audience to listen, and to hear. And every time you silence somebody you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right hear something."

Since the mods at /r/conservative removed the comment, here is what GreenAnarchist said:

The Economist endorses Obama, time to cancel my subscription

Quite right too. When a source you (presumably) previously respected reaches a different conclusion from you on some issue, you should never try to follow their reasoning, understand why they reached the conclusion they did, or see whether they've started from a different set of assumptions to you and (if so) ask which set is more reasonable. Instead, you should block out any dissenting voices from your life. You're absolutely doing the right thing in unsubscribing from any paper that in any way challenges (rather than reinforces) your current views. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. They're wrong. After all, if their opinion was worth anything they would already agree with you, wouldn't they?

The comment, now deleted was in response to: "time to cancel my subscription [of the Economist.]"

Quite right too. When a source you (presumably) previously respected reaches a different conclusion from you on some issue, you should never try to follow their reasoning, understand why they reached the conclusion they did, or see whether they've started from a different set of assumptions to you and (if so) ask which set is more reasonable.
Instead, you should block out any dissenting voices from your life. You're absolutely doing the right thing in unsubscribing from any paper that in any way challenges (rather than reinforces) your current views. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. They're wrong. After all, if their opinion was worth anything they would already agree with you, wouldn't they?